A New Chapter in Alameda Point Redevelopment (Fingers Crossed)

A boisterous crowd cheered in Gilmore, Bonta, Tam and Johnson at Tuesday night’s Alameda City Council meeting. This exciting new chapter also marked the end of another chapter: City Attorney Teresa Highsmith’s tenure as City Attorney. However, John Knox white made an astute observation. Highsmith is transitioning, some might say too quickly, to the City Attorney of Barstow. But surprise, surprise, guess who handles the City of Barstow’s legal issues? Colontuono and Levin, the same firm City Manager Gallant hired to prosecute Lena Tam. Good riddance to closed door meetings and back room deals.


It is refreshing to see Gilmore, Bonta, Tam, Johnson start the year off fresh. There seems to be quite a lot of momentum behind these Alameda city councilmembers, which is a great sign. Doug deHaan continues his term and, in a SF Gate interview, recently addressed Alameda Point redevelopment, which will be the big test for the new council. Interestingly enough he admitted that housing is needed to generate revenue for the city of restore Alameda Point. Thank goodness. Let’s just be out with it and explain to the public WHY this is necessary. Time and time again Alameda has tried to push for parks, open space and commercial space only. Let’s integrate the residential development and create a sustainable, walkable community which can fund its own parks and open space.

The current solution is an “aggressive asset management policy for the leases at the Alameda Point to increase revenue.” Again, we are shooting ourselves in the foot with this strategy. Selling off small pieces for short term leases erodes master planning, sustainable development and transit oriented development opportunities.

Alameda Point needs a big picture, master planned solution, not a short term band aid like “aggressive” short term leases.

Will Tramutola Throw Perata Under the Bus After the Oakland Election Loss?

I did a bit of research on political consultant Larry Tramutola after finding out he was campaign manager for Don Perata’s failing 2010 bid for Oakland Mayor.

Interestingly enough, what popped up first was a Bay Citizen article with the headline “Strategist: SunCal Ignored My Advice.” It was a surprisingly candid article with Tramutola where he said, in so many words, that the failure of the Alameda project was due to the client. These days, I don’t know of many consulting firms that would blast their clients like this in the media. I wonder how many more contracts that article got the firm…

I dug a bit further, and Tramutola’s track record didn’t improve. Perata, Tramutola’s client, was quoted on the campaign trail as saying that he didn't really understand ranked-choice voting.
Well, either Perata was playing dumb because he knew ranked-choice voting would hurt him or his campaign manager Tramutola was sleeping on the job. The East Bay Express covered some of Tramutola’s early campaign mailers for Perata, which were “full of ridiculous errors that raise serious doubts about the intellectual capacity of Perata’s close associates.”

As campaign manager, Tramutola should have been prepared for the new ranked-choice voting system. Even following the campaign peripherally, it was easy to see that ranked-choice voting would be a force to be reckoned with in the Oakland mayoral election… also because it was all over the news. A hard one to miss, especially for someone as involved as a campaign manager.

Now the million dollar question: will Tramutola come out and say that Perata “ignored his advice” and blame Perata?

The Ranked Choice Voting System Rages on in Oakland

I covered Ranked Choice Voting back in April (full article here) speculating that the system could help Oakland mayoral candidate Kaplan.


Well, candidates Kaplan and Quan put their heads together and effectively beat the system. Projected winner former State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata actually won the popular vote, at 35%. But it wasn’t enough. He lost the race to Quan, who understood the in’s and out’s of Ranked Choice Voting and used them to her advantage.

Basically, having a strong support core is not enough to win a ranked choice voting election. To win, candidates must have both a strong support core AND a broad base of support. In highly polarized elections where the vote is divided, it can be anyone’s game.

But Kaplan and Quan saw ahead of the curve and focused on voters that would rank Kaplan and Quan first and second, knocking Perata down a spot or two. He did manage to keep his core support, but Kaplan and Quan knocked out his broad base of support, which cost him the election. Quan racked up 25% of the popular vote, but also won a lot of second place votes. Who says number two is the first loser? Now Quan is the Mayor of Oakland.

Makes me wonder what would happen in other cities like Alameda if Ranked Choice Voting was instituted. Maybe Marie Gilmore wouldn't be mayor after all...

Apparently Perata mentioned on the campaign trail “that he didn't really understand ranked-choice voting.” I’m betting Perata’s election strategists are feeling a bit sheepish right about now. I’m also betting we’re going to see some more legal action against Ranked Choice Voting.

Finally, A Peek Inside Alameda City Hall

I’ve been waiting for someone to do this, and they did….


While the good people of Alameda are with their families, sleeping in their beds or doing anything else but watching City Council meetings until 1 in the morning, our UNelected city officials are running amok. I think recent headlines are enough to make anyone question “What the heck is going on at City Hall?” but this video will SHOW you...

A quick summary before you view:

It seems it’s not the elected leaders, but rather the appointed Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant who is in control of our tax dollars.

Gallant-hired gun Michael Colantuono is at the stand, pretentious at best, telling the Councilmembers what they do and (mostly) don’t have the power to do. According to Colantuono, it is the unelected city manager who dictates the city budget. Translation: she is not being held accountable for how or how much she is spending.

It’s absolutely maddening to watch this arrogant man try and force the Councilmembers to believe that the City Manager has the authority to DO and SPEND whatever she wants.

No, Gallant, it’s not OK that you dictate the city budget from behind closed doors, and when questioned, hire an outside attorney to say “Don’t ask questions!”

Don't believe me? Take a look...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vxyCfo0vAI

Alameda DA Calls City-Hired Attorney Racist

In her September 28th letter, Nancy E. O’Malley, Alameda County District Attorney, ripped apart the arrogant claims of Michael Colantuono “Special Counsel” hired by the City of Alameda. The letter was received by the Alameda Mayor’s Office on October 6, 2010 and can be viewed here.


O’Malley’s letter is stinging (for Colontuono)… here are a few excerpts:

“I find it offensive that you have singled out Asian-American leaders”


“This sort of racially charged accusation has no place in professional dialogue.”


“Whatever your motives in making these false claims, I remain mindful of our role in this process: to objectively and dispassionately evaluate the facts and the law so that a just decision can be reached.”


“I consider the comments you made…to have been made out of ignorance and disappointment, not out of malice and accordingly plan no additional action against their maker.”

It is absolutely ridiculous that the City of Alameda (or should I say Ann Marie Gallant) is paying Mr. Colantuono taxpayer dollars to play these kinds of legal tricks. To personally attack public servants Nancy O’Malley and Lena Tam is outrageous, and I would hope that our hired and elected officials would have better judgment than to hire a legal representative with such little integrity or tact.

California PUC Watchdog

The PG&E September 9th San Bruno pipeline blast, which left eight people dead, finally forced consumer watchdog groups AND the California Public Utilities Commission to open their eyes. Even after the PG&E “smart meter” scandal that had many residents up in arms about the price increases, the PUC didn’t step in to mediate the situation.


The PUC is the committee that should be protecting and serving the people with fair prices and utility regulation, but lately it seems that the committee is favoring the utility Goliaths instead of all the David’s out there paying their gas bills.

The regulatory power of the PUC dictates how much profit companies like PG&E will receive annually, based on PUC regulatory rates. Apparently PG&E is looking for a $4.2 billion increase this year, but in the wake of the pipeline blast, the PUC may not be so lenient with granting their request.

Unnecessary stress on taxpayers and businesses during these tough economic times is the last thing we need. With taxes increasing to pay for schools, infrastructure and public safety services, I hardly find it necessary to increase taxpayers’ utility bills, just so PG&E can have a $4.2 billion increase in profits.

Activists such as the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego have come out against the PUC, advocating for tighter, more fair regulation. And this is commission President Michael Peevey’s response:

"To quote Fox News, we're fair and balanced."

Hmmmm… not the most fair and balanced source, but OK.

It will be important for the community to keep an eye on the PUC: two of the five commissioners are to be replaced in 2011. This means our next governor will play a major role in the future composition of the commission; the five commissioners are appointed by the government and confirmed by the state Senate. Stay tuned.

Voter Survey Says: Gilmore Favored; Top Issues Job Creation, City Budget and School Funding

After I waded through survey percentages, open ended responses, aggregated responses, first, second and third choices, a voter survey revealed that Alameda voters are concerned with…money.

Money for schools: address the school closings, school funding and how it relates to the overall budget.

Money management: balance the city budget, both long and short term, focusing on the sustainability of pensions, city services and school funding.

Making more money (JOBS): create more local jobs and boosting commerce.

And of course, Alameda Point redevelopment was a top concern for voters, citing frustrations on the lack of progress at Alameda Point, “going back 13 years since the base closed.”

And who do voters want in charge of the money? Gilmore.

Eighteen percent of voters would cast their ballot for Marie Gilmore, followed by Doug DeHaan with 17 percent. So bye, bye Matarrese; it looks like Gilmore and DeHaan will go head to head come November.

Some of the open-ended survey responses to the question (paraphrased) “what issue or problem is the top priority for Alameda?” were particularly interesting, so I pulled out a few choice replies:

It would be schools. Education is going downhill. It is a lot worse than it was when we were kids. That is very sad. A healthy school system means that there is a healthy community, and that kids and parents are happier and smarter. It just makes everything work out just fine. It is really important.

The schools are the primary issue. If the children aren't in the right direction of getting a good education, we will have a lot of grown up idiots. We need better teachers. The government must not be loose with the money. They need to be wiser.

They should find a way to take care of the education system without taxing more. They always throw it on the homeowners. The main issues are schools and employment. They need to stop doing these partial taxes.

They need to focus on the Alameda base. They need to be nicer to businesses. They are chasing businesses out of town because they think of themselves first as opposed to thinking of everyone else. It is a tiny island community

It is the naval air station. They should get on with redevelopment. It is not halfway finished, and for 15 years, they have been working on it due to arguments with the developers. The naval air station finally closed and the third developer just moved out. No property taxes or income are being generated, but it is the best view in the bay area.

They should address the development of the old naval base or Alameda point. It is an empty space on the island. I think the proper infrastructure needs to be placed before they start developing the island. Whatever they do, they need to make sure it doesn't clog the arteries into the city. They also need to help the school district.

… and just to get everyone riled up:

I would like to see a Wal‐mart or Kmart built here.

In Alameda, Matarrese Is Attacked From All Sides

Matarrese’s flip flop tactics and lack of leadership are finally garnering election attention. Labor representatives, DeHaan supporters and anonymous citizens are burning Matarrese left and right. I’ll have to say, I almost feel bad for the guy… Almost.
After getting the Alameda Labor Council endorsement in 2006, they pulled support from Matarrese and dished it out to Gilmore this year. This was even after Matarrese pushed for an Alameda Point PLA (public labor agreement) with the unions. I’m not sure what’s going on behind those closed doors, but Labor seems confident in their endorsement of Gilmore after a rigorous candidate interview process to find a candidate that “will best meet the challenges of today's economy and keep our interests at heart.”
And of course, the infamous Anti-Matarrese push poll that ran on September 17. I frown on these kind of election tactics, but this push poll really held Matarrese to the fire citing his lack of leadership and failure to hold corrupt officials accountable. I agree with latter part.

Most recently, an unnamed (sortof) source posted an anti-matarrese YouTube clip. Bloggers are opinionating that David Howard, a known DeHaan for Mayor supporter, posted the clip. Take a look; it’s comment number 32 on LaurenDo’s Election 2010 entry. The clip highlights his flip flop tactics, and I’ll have to agree it does seem like Matarrese is more interested in appearing like he serves the community than actually (gasp) serving the community.

One quick quip then I’ll get off my soapbox, but it makes me wonder what Alameda officials are really working towards if it’s not the best interest of the community…

Push Poll Tactics in Alameda

A push poll this last Friday made waves in Alameda.

The Alameda Journal pointed out that there seems to be a reason the person behind this poll chose Matarrese. The Journal speculates that “Matarrese is the front-runner and, hence, the one worth some smearing.”

John Knox White of the SF Gate blog managed to get a recording of the first question. Click here to take a listen.

The tactics are underhanded, but Knox White’s got it right… unfortunately the push poll makes a few good points. Matarrese is a fence-rider that is adept at the game of politics. He certainly won’t come out in public support of something that will hurt him in an election year, which obviously it is.

But where do his votes lie behind closed doors? One can’t be sure. At least Lena Tam will publicly stand up for what she believes in, instead of engaging in backroom deals. But look where that got her. I have to continue to commend Tam for these efforts, and hope that she keeps fighting for government transparency.

Frank on the other hand, seems to be spending time and effort on initiatives that will help his stats and not what will help out his community, which Lauren Do pointed out in her blog entry yesterday.

As for the City Council race, Tam and Bonta are racking up endorsement after endorsement. Thank goodness. Maybe we’ll get some sense into City Hall after all…

Gallant Wrongly Chooses Tam for Target Practice in Alameda

My faith has been restored in the Alameda justice system and City Councilmembers. The Alameda DA has exonerated Lena Tam, and the Alameda City Council voted unanimously in opposition to a costly civil suit against Lena Tam.

This whole issue was political smoke and mirrors, and to be quite honest, makes me furious to know it cost Alameda over $100,000. Fortunately our city judicial and legislative leaders were able to stick to the facts and see through the political tricks.

Unfortunately Tam was chosen as the bull’s-eye for the ICM’s target practice. Her name was dragged through the mud, leaving the general public to ask the question, “Did Lena Tam commit the crime?” This is unfortunate because they should be asking the question “Who accused Tam of these crimes and why?” The answers are much more interesting for the latter question.

It is no coincidence that Ann Marie Gallant, Alameda Interim City Manager chose Tam as the scapegoat. She is the City Councilmember who is and was questioning the corrupt system, and trying to get some structures in place that will clean up City Hall, such as the Sunshine Task Force. She openly questions Gallant at City Council meetings and was one of the two votes against hiring Ann Marie as City Manager.
A quick peek into Gallant’s past shows us that this is not the first time Gallant has tried to kick out someone who doesn’t agree with her, then hastily resign, as she did in Desert Hot Springs:

http://www.pe.com/localnews/desert/stories/PE_News_Local_D_dgallant11.4025e27.html

Representative Stark’s Tour De Town Halls

After recent accusations of being an “avowed socialist” and “Marxist” by running mate Forest Baker and his infamous sarcastic comment “who are you going to kill today?” about federal border security to Minuteman Steve Kemp, California’s 13th District Representative Pete Stark is not, shall we say, on the best of terms with his constituents.


His recent Tour De Town Halls in Hayward, Freemont and San Leandro is an excellent thermometer for voter sentiment. They have turned from outright hostility following the border security remark to a nice mix of harsh comments and Thank You signs. Still, not exactly where you want to be before an election.

I’d like to think the politician in him would innately try to smooth out the rough edges during these pre-election times. Not surprisingly, Stark was bombarded by a line of questioning on the failing economy and resulting deficits. Stark is focusing on cutting defense spending, the removal of the Bush-era tax cuts, and short term Social Security cuts.

As for starting at the root of the problem and reworking the budget, The Bay Area Citizen reports that Stark is hands off:

“I don’t want to touch that!” he says.

He seems to be focusing on cuts rather than incentives. What are his plans to stimulate the flailing economy? What are his plans for economic development? Although I appreciate his time and attention to health care reform, what about our jobs??

Decision 2010: Alameda Mayoral and City Council Candidates

There are some true open government hopefuls in the Alameda Mayoral and City Council race. It’s a refreshing thought to know that the community can de-rail the stale train of thought of our current representatives by voting in the upcoming election. Although some politicians paint a pretty picture of the current state of affairs in Alameda, one doesn’t have to look past the Alameda housing slump, the hurting budgets of the schools, fire fighters and police (to name a few) to realize it’s a farce. It’s vital that the community is informed and casts their vote come November 2.


The race has attracted five candidates for Mayor and eight candidates for the two open City Council seats which are listed below followed by a brief commentary:

Mayoral Candidates:

Frank Matarrese, Councilmember

Marie Gilmore, Councilmember

Doug deHaan, Vice Mayor

Tony Daysog, former City Councilman

Kenneth Kahn, a professional clown who ran in 2006

Matarrese has been actively campaigning for the past 6 months at least, so most likely has a financial leg up on the competition. During their terms, Matarrese and deHaan have promised transparency, efficiency and public improvement. However, they seem to get caught up in the system and are not able to work with their fellow Councilmembers to make real improvements in Alameda. Matarrese followed the notoriously wishy-washy Beverly Johnson in her reverse decision on Alameda Point, stopping a deal that would have provided Alameda with new economic opportunities. DeHaan is old-fashioned and resistant to positive change on the island, once quoted as saying the architectural design for the now celebrated renovation of the Alameda Theatre was “butt ugly.” He’s not an agent of change, to say the least.

This leaves Gilmore and Daysog (sorry, Kenneth Kahn) as my open government hopefuls. Gilmore is a fresh-faced current Councilmember, with an impressive list of endorsements to date. In action, Gilmore is also impressive, frequently pushing forward visionary projects – sometimes in the face of strong opposition - that will benefit the city such as the Alameda Theatre, Towne Center, public library and Harbor Bay Business Park. Daysog is a fair-minded business man who knows the reality of the situation at Alameda. He sees the situation clearly through all the politicking in City Hall with an eye on a high quality of life for Alameda. It is refreshing to have his new ideas in this race. He can identify the small - but important - steps that will lead to larger positive change, such as the beginning of Park Street downtown renovation with a Peet’s Coffee lease.

City Council Candidates:

Mayor Beverly Johnson

Jean Sweeney, a local park and open space advocate, she sits on the Restoration Advisory Board

Lena Tam, incumbent Councilwoman

Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board president

Rob Bonta, Health Care District Board member

Tracy Jensen, Board of Education trustee

Jeff Mitchell, former Alameda Journal editor

Adam Gillitt, local businessman

These candidates fall in two groups in my eyes: candidates who are willing to challenge the status quo and candidates who want politics as usual. Based on my research, Tam, Ashcraft and Bonta are the former, and will stand up for an open, honest, responsible government for Alameda. The latter “politics as usual” group, in my opinion, includes Johnson and Sweeney. Johnson refuses to take a stance on most issues, and if she does, may detract it a few months later (i.e. Alameda Point). Sweeney doesn’t seem to understand the bigger picture and lacks the know-how to make the big changes Alameda needs in today’s City Council. For example, she is a fierce advocate of parks, open space, more community amenities, but does not define sources of funding. How will she add more parks when we’re seeing severe slashes to our school budgets? As of now, Gillitt and Jensen seem to fall towards the “politics as usual” camp, but I’ll be watching those two candidates closely as their campaigns continue.

Now, most importantly, what do you think?

Suncal Tells Its Story: An Interview with David Soyka, SVP of Public Affairs

The New York Times, San Francisco Gate and a slew of local blogs have all focused their media scrutiny on the quaint island of Alameda and Alameda Point redevelopment, which left the city and its officials without answers, stunned like a deer in headlights.

After all this intense media attention, one can only hope the light at the end of the tunnel will be an honest post mortem analysis of the project, with a few key learnings that will help us move forward. I tip my investigative hat to reporters Zusha Elinson, Michele Ellson, LaurenDo and John Knox White for moving this process along. As for city officials, I see more of the same insane politicking that yields the same insane results.

It’s interesting to see developer after developer be turned away from the real estate gem of the Bay Area. With all its potential, why does this keep happening on Alameda Point?

Who is the scapegoat this time around? Is it the developer Suncal, Lena Tam or is it Ann Marie Gallant and the City of Alameda? East Bay for Open Government gave Suncal SVP of Public Affairs David Soyka a call to ask a few of our questions. Following is an excerpt from our question and answer session:

First off, how is Suncal dealing with the loss of the 4-0 city council vote?
All of the Suncal team has put blood, sweat and tears into the Alameda Point project. Some of us have relocated our families and dedicated the last three years of our life into creating a viable, sustainable, transit-oriented development that would benefit the City of Alameda and its residents. The Peter Calthorpe plan is visionary and environmental groups, affordable housing advocates and residents support the plan. We all think it’s a shame to see it dissipate.

Nick Kosla, Suncal Forward Planner, claimed that the weekly meetings between Alameda City Staff and Suncal were “an abyss.” Do you agree?
Unfortunately yes. It was a frustrating experience to be negotiating in good faith and believe we were making progress with the City Staff, only to realize it was just a show. None of the hard work done on either side was communicated to the decision makers at the city council.

What was Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s role in the development process?
For a project that is of top priority to her community and is one-third of the island of Alameda, she was alarmingly uninvolved. She delegated most duties to an inexperienced junior member of her team, Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott, who I believe once worked for the Economic and Planning Systems group (Economic and Planning Systems created the staff reports highly critical of SunCal’s plan). Our planning team had never come across this irregular process, especially in a project of this size.

Did it appear to you that the ICM had an alternate plan during negotiations with Suncal?
It was so unexpected that we did not believe it was happening, but as it drew closer and closer to the date of the vote, it was hard to deny. She publicly announced a Plan B to the Chamber in 2009, was minimally involved in plan negotiations. We constantly heard rumors that she was sabotaging the project behind closed doors. It seemed she did not want the project to succeed.

When City attorney Terry Highsmith stated, “we’re starting to think we’d be better off without a developer,” it should have been a sign something was going on. In retrospect we should have known, but when you are sitting across from your development partner (the City) it’s hard to imagine that they’re doing everything in their power to work against you. I guess we hoped for too much.

Is there anything else?
We still believe in the plan to revitalize Alameda Point. We’ve invested in the community and the East Bay region and would like to find a way to work in good faith with the city. This plan will bring the East Bay valuable regional benefits and positive economic impact.

East Bay for Open Government contacted Ann Marie Gallant and she was not available for comment.

Alameda Point Plan B

Well, here we go again. Alameda City Council is starting to pencil out a Plan B for redeveloping Alameda Point. It's a bit exhausting even to watch the council go through the same tired process, probably only to arrive at the same reality at the end of the day.

True to form, each Councilmember has a different opinion regarding future development plans. Marie Gilmore wants more public input, Lena Tam wants a secure source of financing, however, the most alarming position comes from Frank Matarrese.

Matarrese has actually created a proposal for the development of a nonprofit corporation that would head up the Alameda Point revitalization process and focus on job creation, not housing. It’s a bit early for a full-blown proposal just days after the vote…

Suncal also seems to think so. Pat Keliher, Suncal’s Alameda Group Manager, claimed that the City of Alameda was working on this Plan B while still being paid to do work for Suncal. The Island’s Michele Ellson reports that “the Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant gave a 2009 Chamber of Commerce breakfast where she reportedly said the city had a Plan B for developing Alameda Point.”

Councilmember Doug DeHaan reacted vehemently to the accusation stating, “I’m just appalled that someone says we’re doing secret plans in the back room. I don’t think that’s the case.”

Well Mr. DeHaan, if the deciding party (i.e. the City of Alameda) claimed they had a Plan B back in 2009, then immediately came out with a new redevelopment proposal after the vote in 2010 after kicking out the old developer, the cards would be stacked against you, don’t you think?

Let’s just see how effective this nonprofit corporation creation will be. Personally, I applaud Lena Tam’s business acumen by focusing on project financing upfront. The City of Alameda can’t afford to do this alone. It’s all pie in the sky until someone can foot the bill.

Alameda Point Questions Left Unanswered

I was left with more questions than answers after last night’s city council meeting addressing Alameda Point. For me, the only answer came in the form of a 4-0 vote (Lena Tam abstaining) declaring that the City of Alameda would sever its contract with land developer Suncal, leaving Alameda Point to wallow in another 13 years of inactivity.


And now, the questions…

Why did Lena Tam abstain from voting? At first it seemed she was admitting guilt to the accusations laid against her by Interim City Manager (ICM) Ann Marie Gallant by not voting. However, according to The Island’s Michele Elleson, Tam “didn’t feel comfortable making a decision” because the city staff actually withheld vital decision-making documents from the Councilmembers. City staff would not share Suncal’s best and final development offer or City Attorney Teresa Highsmith’s opinion on the city’s legal exposure. So was it simply a confidentiality issue with Lena Tam? Doesn’t look like it. Even neutral Councilwoman Marie Gilmore was not able to read the documents.

The city staff seems to be claiming that their analysis of the Pro Forma, DDA, Navy Terms Sheet and ENA is sufficient, without giving elected officials an opportunity to come to that conclusion on their own. I commend Lena Tam. She stood up and protested. She refused to swallow someone else’s questionable answers to complex questions, and instead wanted to test the city staff’s conclusion by working through it herself. This is what I expect out of my elected officials. It is unfortunate that the Alameda city staff obstructs this kind of action.

What will happen to the city employees? As I understand it, Suncal’s escrow account bankrolls a number of city employees (see awkward argument between Frank Faye and Ann Marie Gallant in the April 20 City Council meeting over this very subject). Will they now be let go?

What’s next? Suncal points to a lawsuit while the city staff doesn’t seem to have a direction (surprise). Wouldn’t it be a joke if the city just took all of Suncal’s development materials and did it themselves…?

On a lighter note, I was very impressed with the city council meeting turnout. It’s great to see residents stand up and hold their elected and appointed officials accountable. Keep it up, Alameda.

Judgement Day: Alameda Point

Well, it looks like the City Council will finally deliver a verdict on Alameda Point which will decide whether or not they will be extending developer Suncal's Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.

I'm sure City Council Chambers will be packed tonight. Will the City Councilmembers step up and take the reins from Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant? Or will the Interim City Manager's tricks have manipulated Alameda officials into sending the developer packing? If it's the latter, I'm interested to see the ICM's next steps.

City Council agenda is below. The meeting will be held at 7 o'clock tonight.

http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/agenda.html?agenda=cc_assoc_100720_1602

Stay tuned....

War Makes for Strange Bedfellows: Suncal Opposition David Howard and Alameda City Manager Ann Marie Gallant

It’s a bit hypocritical that HIRED CITY EMPLOYEE Ann Marie Gallant is putting VOLUNTEER ELECTED OFFICIAL City Councilmember Lena Tam under Alameda DA investigation, when she exhibits the exact same behavior for which she is accusing Tam.


Ms. Gallant forgot to delete a revealing conversation between her and Mr. David Howard before forwarding it on through the E-mail chain. In this conversation, she shared Alameda Point development information with Howard, self-appointed spokesperson for Save Our City!, the principle Alameda Point project opposition.

This looks like someone pointing a finger at another person and crying foul when the accuser has done the same thing. As she is leading the posse to prosecute Lena Tam, Ms. Gallant hypocritically took the same actions behind closed doors (or should I say in deleted E-mails) when she is supposed to be acting objectively and dealing on the Alameda Point matter without bias.

It appears that Gallant is trying to cover her tracks by hiding behind the city’s 30-day E-mail deletion policy. The excuse is that this policy is necessary due to “limited server capacity.” However, there are always two copies of an E-mail: the E-mail sent and the E-mail received. If the City of Alameda chooses to not archive its E-mails for a minimum of two years unlike many other government agencies that do comply with the California Secretary of State’s recommendations, then the prosecution can still look for received E-mails beyond the City server, like the E-mail chain below. In this way, there is still evidence that Gallant has been sharing information with the opposition, just as Lena Tam is accused of sharing information with Suncal and others. Perhaps more forensic results of Gallant’s “deleted” E-mails are yet to come?

The information which Gallant provides is incriminating.

Gallant specifically writes to Howard, “You’re right; no comment (referring to how a document was leaked) ….SMILE…we will send you my op ed too so you can get it on your site…TX”

Howard replies, “I understand if you don’t want to comment on who or how it got out … Dave.”

Gallant then writes as part of a lengthy response, “If you want the June 30, 2009 ARRA audit, just call Dorey at 4887 in Finance and tell her I said it was OK to give you a copy via pdf. She will send it to you… AMG”

Mr. Howard replies in part, “Where is the ARRA annual report for FY 2008-2009? I thought it was due in December? Is Leslie Little dragging her heels on that because she doesn’t want to upset SunCal’s messaging over the “$14 million” in costs to maintain the base?”

Gallant’s actions are outrageous. Let’s take a stand for open government and get corrupt officials out of office. Gallant’s “do as I say, not as I do” line of thinking is an unacceptable double standard.

Read on for the full E-mail chain.

Suncal Finally Demands Justice from Alameda Interim City Manager

Triggered by Anne Marie Gallant’s vicious investigation of City Councilmember Lena Tam, Suncal attorneys have finally demanded justice from the City of Alameda.

As negotiations become increasingly tense, you can start to see the reality of the situation, and it appears Suncal is forced to fight fire with fire.

Suncal attorneys retaliated with three letters to city officials that are now posted on the Suncal website. The letters are full court press. A brief summary:

• Letter #1, addressed to the city clerk, is a public information request. Lena Tam is taking some heat for her E-mail etiquette, and I’m guessing Suncal would like to compare Tam’s actions with Gallant’s (eh-hem) pristine communications. They are requesting all correspondence (including E-mail) from January 1, 2006 to July 12, 2010. Knowing the city, I’m sure most electronic records will have been deleted.

• Letter #2, addressed to city council, is an analysis of the terms and conditions of the Alameda Point Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the City and Suncal. Suncal attorneys assert that Suncal has satisfied the agreement conditions and therefore a July 20th vote is not necessary and the ENA, by law, will remain in effect.

• Letter #3, addressed to city council, is a scathing documentation of the “harm Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant has done to the Alameda Point project.” A legal document has never been so riveting… The letter paints the ICM with a black brush, inferring she is maliciously manipulating city employees and elected officials, and stacking the cards so she is positioned as judge, jury and executioner. Suncal attorneys encourage the city “to take a long and hard look at the actions of Ms. Gallant and investigate what she has done and her fitness to serve as a City official.”

Ann Marie Gallant has a long history of closed door practices. I will cite a list from a fellow blogger, CT, who details her “contributions” to the city:

• Had her “Civic Center Vision” revitalization plan produced without public input

• Tried to increase her compensation without review via the City Council’s consent calendar

• Recommended that the City Council enact a badly written campaign finance reform ordinance that would give an advantage to incumbents running for office

• Handed former out-of-town colleagues city contracts without giving local businesses an opportunity to participate in an open bidding process

• Hired an outside attorney to secretly root through the emails of a council member in an effort to unseat them

Support open government; let’s remove toxic closed door practices from our city government.

Weak Justice for Oscar Grant; No Justice for Lena Tam

Faced with a covertly-assembled but taxpayer-financed dossier of alleged wrongdoing, city councilor Lena Tam has hired an aggressive and high powered attorney with a distinguished combat record. Former Marine, John Keker, Esq., has a target rich environment for a counter suit as well, following revelations that Acting City Manager Ann Marie Gallant hired outside counsel to put together a case against Tam and has turned it over to the local DA seeking her removal.

It would be bad enough that such a coup attempt was perpetrated by a staffer who is supposed to be working for ALL the city council rather than picking sides, or even creating them. But what’s more shocking is that the referral to the DA for potential prosecution and forced removal from office closely follows Tam’s query about Gallant’s contracting irregularities.

Seems Gallant overlooked local and qualified bond counsel and instead sent the lucrative six-figure business to an old boss of hers. He scratched her back. Now she’s scratching his. And this would have all been under the radar and letter-of-the-law legal except that there were two bond attorneys in the deal who were not divvying up the money evenly, so one of them was getting more than 75K, the magic number at which Gallant is supposed to first seek council approval.

So Tam has the good sense to air her concern about this perhaps minor league breach of the city’s procurement rules. But in seeming retaliation, out comes this file on Tam that Gallant has built and is now turning over to the DA. Wow.

Since Tam is not accused of illegal or questionable actions in her own interest, but merely of the same sort of minor technical violations our city manager herself seems to perpetrate, the timing and implications could not be more onerous.

Gallant and Tam have differed on questions about the Firefighters’ Union and SunCal’s proposals for Alameda Point. But it seems to me having files on your bosses is a lot like J. Edgar Hoover having the dirt on a Kennedy or Nixon.

Unfortunately for Keker and Tam, their effort at a press conference yesterday to air their side of the story went badly, as their timing ran up against the Mehserle manslaughter verdict, plus a lot of unhappy rioters venting over the tragic loss of Oscar Grant.

Her attorney said the case was ‘merit-less’ and called for quick review by the DA, rather than letting this circus further tarnish an otherwise dedicated volunteer elected official. He said our city’s appointed bureaucrats were making themselves “judge, jury and executioner,” and that was just Mr. Keker getting warmed up.

Keker’s going to need to watch his back too. I can imagine Gallant’s opening a file up on him even as I type – and that you and I will be paying the tab for it, whether we know it or not.

I for one don’t want my elected officials cowering before modern-day McCarthyism or Hoover style tactics. Time to start paying attention folks, and stop sitting on the sidelines.

Gallant Wants Tam Voted Off the Island

Wow. It’s really creepy to me that a city administrator can seek to have one of her elected bosses removed from government. All the more so because the councilor in question, Lena Tam, is the same one who dared inquire about the administrator’s recent end-run around competitive procurement to give some bond counsel business to an old friend and employer.

If this maneuver works, every other elected official is going to have to double back and revisit every email they’ve ever sent to see if they too might have stepped over some line in regards to some rule or other. If they have, and the administrator, ICM Gallant in this case, has the ‘goods’ on them, then we only have our democratic republic in working order right up until Gallant decides to hit the eject button. Reminds me of Dr. Evil, ready to dump the next underling into the fire with the push of a button.

Our elected councilors are essentially citizen legislators. If they have indeed crossed some line, the right thing to do as a highly paid senior professional in this regard is to point it out to them. Not build some file with some private eye or attorney and then drop it all off at the DA’s office with a press release at the ready to further spin the gotcha.

This is really twisted. And the further irony is that the ICM’s own e-mail trail gets destroyed for no good reason after 30 days, per city policy. My own hotmail and gmail accounts can store large quantities of email for years and not run up any sort of appreciable tab. Electronic data storage is dirt cheap. So the current city policy of covering its own tracks should be revisited if nothing else.

I’m sure there won’t be any ‘smoking gun’ for the ICM. She’s been down this road multiple times before. But a good publicly accessible records retention policy might help us keep an eye on our money in the future.

Gallant and Friends, Part 1

Lately, our Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant has come under the spotlight with her decisions on contracting work for Alameda. She’s been awarding city contracts to her former bosses and colleagues without getting approval from the City Council. She’s able to do so because individual contracts have been less than $75,000. Anything over that requires a Council vote, so these contracts are off the radar.

Westhoff, Cone & Holmstedt, Graphtek, and Rips Consulting are city contract holders because of their relationship with Ms. Gallant. And how did these out-of-towners get city contracts over local Alameda businesses? Because Gallant never put these contracts up for open bidding. Again, transparency is lost.

And of course Ms. Gallant adds more fuel to the fire when any kind of inquiry is directed at her; she goes on the defensive. It looks more suspicious when she acts as if she is being attacked by the councilmembers when questioned over her doings.

On another project it looks like she may be passing on her tricks to her protégé Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott. The inexperienced DCM might be doing Ms. Gallant’s bidding, such as leading City Planning meetings in place of the Interim City Manager. It’s an ambitious delegation of power, which includes Ms. Ott running meetings with 13 or more corporate lawyers and planners, and making decisions about the biggest land use project Alameda has seen, Alameda Point.

So, Ms. Ott hires Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), her former employer, to evaluate Suncal’s pro forma for Alameda Point. EPS came back with a report that said Suncal grossly underestimated costs for the Alameda Point redevelopment and that Alameda does not have enough reserves for the project. EPS’s report isn’t representative because they took their assumptions from a textbook and not from Alameda, California or any current market data.

It seems open competition is out the door. Whether or not these contracts or findings are just, it’s hard to find the transparency. It looks as if an in with Ms. Gallant or Ms. Ott may come with special privileges. This doesn’t benefit Alameda or the future of Alameda Point.

Campaign Finance Reform...Not Yet

The Alameda City Council last week decided not to adopt the ordinance to enforce a cap at $250 on election contributions to local campaigns at this time. Back in February, the City Council had tasked the Sunshine Task Force to compile a list of community issues pertaining to access to open government.

I watched the fireworks and though there were inferences that incumbents or their friends stood to benefit from capping others’ ability to raise money during this election year, it came across as an honest difference of opinion.

Councilor Gilmore expressed concern in particular about the timing and she had a good point. It was all pretty much an undone deal at any rate since Councilor Matarrese said he had been to a Democratic Club meeting recently on the topic and nobody seemed to even know the Council had it under consideration.

And speaking of Gilmore and fireworks, she did not like the look of Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s decision to toss some no-bid work to a bond advisor who used to be her boss. Councilor Tam was not impressed either, and it was shocking to watch the City Manager act as if she were being accused of taking kickbacks. Nobody said anything about kickbacks, but that there was an appearance of a conflict of interest – especially since her old boss and friend was getting more than 75K on the deal. This amount normally needs Council approval.

When back and forth was over, there seemed to be agreement that council would tighten up the leash on this sort of thing going forward. Stay tuned.

Environmental Sunshine

While the City’s Sunshine Task Force toils under weighty issues like campaign finance reform, I have a little side bit of environmental sunshine I’ve digging for answers on. What-all is really left to us from the Navy in terms of toxics like lead, asbestos, arsenic, VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) depleted uranium even???
Check out this laundry list for a rough idea at least of what’s out there, and where:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Contams&id=0902731

Though this is really a federal issue from the historical perspective, in my excavation I discovered that the big, multi-million dollar study for much of the Naval Air Station is being done right now by the city, and on SunCal’s dime no less, under the scope of what could be done out there and what needs to be cleaned up and how? It’s called an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

But excitement must be tempered by the fact that such work takes more time than SunCal has left with the city under the current ENA (that’s city-speak for Exclusive Negotiations Agreement). Fortunately, this is something the Mayor and Council can readily extend. The question is will they choose to do so, or would they rather just not know, perhaps?

Don’t get me wrong, the developer is not funding the city’s study out of the goodness of their hearts. They sure hope there will be good enough news in that EIR to allow them to move forward under the ENA and do what developers do, build stuff. We’ve blogged before about how these guys probably really aren’t so bad, especially with the local treasury hurting from too many needs and too little cash flow.

I guess this is just one more bit of Sunshine it’d be good to have from SunCal and here’s to hoping the elected down at city hall give ‘em the time for completion of that report.

Alameda Getting Eaten by PAC Man?

After June 1 lengthy City Council meeting, little was done to improve the Campaign Finance Reform ordinance. The biggest change seen was the Council’s decision to leave the requirement that states that anyone contracted by the City or in negotiations to contract with the City would be prohibited from making a contribution to any candidate for Alameda public office.

Seems like a great idea and of course it’s not too big of an issue since Alameda is largely contracted out to non-Alameda companies. But they forgot to close one large loophole.

A contractor or a potential contractor with the City wants to give money to a candidate? Sure, send it on through a PAC.

Since the ordinance doesn’t cap a limitation on overall expenditures, it causes independent groups to spend on BEHALF of a candidate instead of direct spending by the candidate. So now, a company can just send money to the PAC who in turn does some sort of service, such as creating info packets or providing staff, in support of the intended candidate.

Tracking funds sent through PAC is doable, but it decreases the ease of access to records. The time spent searching through records of whoever received money would be tedious and discouraging. The ease of transparency is lost through this and creates more frustration.

Where is the reform that we have asked for? I’m tired of these campaign finance issues going unresolved.

SunCal Starting to Look Like a 10 at 2

Last month Alameda city officials admitted that the cash buffer between our local government and bankruptcy is down to 22 days. The prognosis is also not good going forward, since costs will continue to rise and our revenue won’t.

Rather than futile economic finger-pointing, however, what if we got serious about adding to our tax base? Let me see now…

We’d need a major parcel of land, and a whole lot of community input about how to redevelop that land. We’d also need a master plan based on that input which incorporated ways to reduce traffic, preserve open space, protect taxpayers, add workforce housing and bring in more revenue than it costs to serve. And we’d need a new urbanist type developer with massive financial backing and extensive expertise to make it all happen.

Hmmmm. Where we gonna get all this, and in short order no less? Did I hear someone say Alameda Point, and SunCal? What an idea!?!? Why didn’t we think of it sooner!!!

Unfortunately, the train coming down the track behind 3 years of community input to get us to a plan that is Measure A compliant and economically viable is about to be derailed, unless the city council extends the deadline for SunCal under the terms of the current Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. We’ve got these guys on the hook for 3 years of work and millions of dollars in studies. It’s time we cashed in and got them to work turning Tarmac into Tree Lined Streets, Shops, Homes and Offices.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!! Time’s a wasting folks

Speedier Access Coming Alameda's Way

The U.S. Senate has taken a positive step and passed Bill 3111: The Faster FOIA Act of 210. This bill would establish a commission to study delays in processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the system for charging fees and granting waivers and the increased use of FOIA exemptions to deny access. In addition, it will develop administrative and legislative recommendations for addressing each of these areas. The bill made it through the Senate and is currently in the House.

Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced this bill to update the existing FOIA law that ensures public access to U.S. government records and deems the government responsible to present requested records to the public. It’s the ultimate open government law and just like any law, it needs updating and improvements. We all know how slow government can be and this bill will identify the methods to reduce delays in processing FOIA requests.

How will this affect/improve Alameda? Back in April, there was a dispute between the Interim City Manager and City Council over whether or not SunCal paid for her salary. SunCal is paying the City of Alameda through an escrow account and it was found to be paying for City staff members that attend city planning meetings. After questions were raised, the ICM revealed that she does not bill directly to SunCal and instead mostly bills to the General Fund. It looked as if the City was making a profit from the escrow account while billing to the General Fund.

Hopefully, with this new bill, we can ask for and receive the City of Alameda’s timesheets and internal emails to avoid all these speculations and find the answers.

Shine Some Sun on Alameda Public Records

Transparency. Open communication. That’s what we all want from our government. But how can we keep track of the communication between our elected officials when there is no record?

I went to make a FOIA freedom of information act request of public records in Alameda and was dumbstruck why they do not retain email correspondence of elected public officials or public employees.

Back in June 2001, the City of Alameda enacted a policy of deleting emails after 30 days. In California, the generally accepted standard is to keep any form of correspondence amongst California governing bodies for at least two years.

The California Government code says that any government record must be retained for a minimum of two years. While this regulation does not explicitly state that public emails should be retained for that amount of time, it can be interpreted through the Code.

The conundrum here is defining correspondence. Some officials in Monterey deem emails to be non-correspondent and therefore subject to deletion after a period of 30 days. Does that mean only letters that come from the post office are considered “correspondence”? Who writes letters anymore? This is not the Pony Express era.

While every email is not correspondence, our City should err on the safe side and keep public emails. These emails could be considered relevant records of government activities to the public and they should be publicly available to us.

Our laws should be updated to reflect current patterns in how government bodies work. It’s our public right to access every record and some of our City officials are keeping that away from us. Why are they deleting these emails? Where’s the transparency?

I believe the Alameda Sunshine Task Force is still in action. We need them to look into this activity and provide further clarification or propose new legislation to define email correspondence

Interim City Manager Out of Pocket

Apparently our Interim City Manager (ICM) isn’t getting paid enough by our city government. In the May 4th Alameda City Council meeting, a recommendation was made to approve a first amendment to the ICM’s contract. This amendment has asked for an additional $6,000 towards health benefits for the ICM.

Some background info. As negotiated, the City is not contracted to provide medical benefits to a temporary employee. The ICM was awarded a $250,000 base salary as opposed to the former City Manager’s salary of $195,000. The $55,000 difference covers the lack of benefits and puts the ICM’s total compensation slightly less than the City Manager.

So the ICM is basically getting paid the same overall salary as a full-time city manager. The approval of the additional $6,000 is buried on the consent calendar, which can simply be approved by a motion from a Councilmember. Knowing full well the City negotiated her contract without those terms, she tried to sneak it past the public on the consent calendar.

The ICM is justifying this increase by saying she won’t charge for professional development, which includes a $5,000 stipend already included in her original contract. The City defines “professional development” as functions and conferences where the City Manager can represent Alameda and further the City’s goals.

The City of Alameda allocated that money for a reason. She should be attending those types of events, not diverting funds for personal reasons.

What happens when she wants to attend a “professional development” event? She will probably justify this extra expense and sneak it in as another item on the consent calendar.

Ranger Schwarzenegger Attempts to Save California's Parks

After last year’s $24 billion dollar deficit in the golden state, we’ve seen park maintenance reduction, public facility closures and even complete park closures. With more state parks than any other state in the nation, these closures are closely felt by residents. The governor promised to pump money back into the parks starting July 1, the start of the new fiscal year. Guess again.


The $100 million dollars originally promised to state park funding - brought in from oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast - is now being diverted to oil spill cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico. I guess parks and oil don’t mix.

But the governor is still promising park improvements. How is that possible with a projected $20 billion state deficit for the coming year?

It is, of course, being patched-up with an age-old solution: more taxes. California State Parks executives are suggesting an $18 vehicle fee.

So now we’ll pay almost 20 bucks to visit the park with our children and grandchildren. I figure this is important to keep in mind when local governments suggest more park development. In Alameda, we see residents pushing for Alameda Point parks with undetermined sources of funding. In Irvine, we see the so-called Great Park costing the city $100,000 every month. In the Bay Area, we see Angel Island, China Camp and countless others closing down during the weekdays and cutting necessary public services.

Nice attempt Ranger Schwarzenegger. But can you suggest that local governments fix our current state of affairs before we add more expensive public amenities?

EIR “Scoping Session” for Alameda Point

Under the façade of an “EIR scoping session,” last night’s Alameda Planning Board meeting was truly just a rant and rave session.


I’m certainly not speaking out against the freedom of speech here, but what I am speaking out against is the lack of leadership in Alameda government. They don’t seem to be providing their citizens with the cut and dry facts of Alameda Point development and unfortunately the two dozen SunCal opponents that showed last night don’t have a clue what the plan truly entails.
The City has a check-in-hand that enables them to study the environmental impacts of the project, and they are passing it up. City leadership needs to keep residents on track and informed of the issues.

They need to set the stage for a successful future Alameda Point development. Let’s be realistic about traffic increase. Whether opponents rant and rave or not, there will be growth on Alameda Point; it’s the natural growth path for the city. Therefore, traffic will increase. So let’s plan it out, study the effects beforehand, and do our best to mitigate that increase with intelligent city-planning. Let’s study commercial and residential land use, let’s study the environmental effects on and off shore and let’s study how we’ll supply sustainable power to Alameda Point.

THAT’S what the EIR is for, THAT’S what the City should be pushing for. Instead, they’re getting caught up in complaints.

What kind of statement is this from Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott?

“We are going to try to negotiate a [deal] by July 20. I don’t think we can say that’s going to happen, but we’re trying to make it happen,”

My question is, WHY can’t you make it happen? Is SunCal doing something? If so, what? Why are we stuck? How can we move forward?

It would be great to have honest, open answers to these questions, but instead we’re getting a bunch of comments that are intended to pacify the masses.

They’re not working.

Alameda Point: SunCal or ???

SunCal’s Exclusive Negotiating Contract is up come July 20, and it appears the city staff and city council have been exploring their development options. Open space development, such as Irvine’s Great Park, doesn’t seem financially viable. Would the City begin looking for another master developer? Another local developer, Ron Cowan, has developed the Waterfront business and light industrial park on Alameda’s Harbor Bay. It has proven to be a good source of income for the city.


Now follow the coast a few miles north from Harbor Bay, and you run into the Alameda Point naval base, which has the same selling points as the Harbor Bay development (location, transit access, skilled labor base…). In 2007, the City chose SunCal Companies as the master developer to submit a master plan for Alameda Point and, once approved, move forward with redevelopment.

Now, who will take over if the City doesn’t approve the SunCal master plan? Will it matter if we substitute another developer in for SunCal? Would another developer like Cowan solve all of Alameda’s issues?

What will the Interim City Manager (ICM) propose? Technically, the ENA prohibits any negotiations with another developer until July 20. However, that doesn’t seem likely. What seems equally as unlikely is a smooth transition and new development process with another developer. The City’s track record with developers is not strong; developers have come and gone for Alameda Point and the City has been involved in a lawsuit with developer Francis Collins due to a density bonus application dispute. Also, the ICM does not seem to work well with SunCal, as referenced in the April 20 City Council meeting, and I don’t see how she will do a sudden 180 in negotiations with another developer.

Victory in San Leandro!

The Kaiser Permanente San Leandro Medical Center is approved. In a historic vote from the City Council, the largest construction project in the city’s history can finally move forward.


The economic ripple effect is uplifting: 2,000 permanent and 3,000 construction jobs.

After five years of back and forth, Mayor Tony Santos, City Manager Stephen Hollister, and City Councilmembers approved the Environmental Impact Report and rezoning of the property for the medical center and adjacent 275,000-square-foot retail area.

The retail area drew harsh criticism from Bayfair Center, an existing retail center located near the construction site. However, Kaiser agreed to delay retail construction until the “economy improves,” or more specifically, in two to three years.

This leadership team saw the long-term benefits for the city and pushed the project forward. This is the kind of action we need to see in the greater Bay Area. Congratulations San Leandro.

City Demands Alameda Point Election Reimbursement

Alameda Mayor Beverly Johnson cut right to the chase in her May 3rd letter to SunCal:

“I hope we can look forward to a full reimbursement of the City’s election expenses for the failed Measure B Initiative and that there will be no further inferences that it was the City’s fault that SunCal chose to place the Measure B Initiative on the ballot.”

Isn’t it the City Council that votes to place any initiative on the ballot? The statement from the Mayor contradicts that standard process, so I wanted to see for myself.

Here is the City Council video clip that documents the Councilmembers 3-2 vote to put the initiative on the ballot:

http://alameda.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=554

Councilmembers Tam and Gilmore even had reservations, as reported by the Island at that time:

“Councilmembers Lena Tam and Marie Gilmore opposed the plan, saying they couldn’t support the cost of the special election the city will have to hold for the vote.”

I don’t think the Mayor and City Council can deny that they voted to place the Alameda Point Initiative on the ballot. Or can they?

Can Alameda Afford a Great Park?

Alameda city officials seem to be exploring their own version of the Orange County "Great Park" for Alameda Point. What a great idea - if it was economically feasible.

I've seen developers come and go out on Alameda Point, and the city should not ignore this track record. Let's look at why the previous plans didn't work. One of the key issues is financing. How will Alameda afford a Great Park without the economic engine to support it?

The Orange County Register reports that Great Park leaders (a board comprised of city leadership and community members at-large) signed off on an $82.7 million budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

So where is this money coming from? The short explanation is taxes and the small amount of revenue the Great Park generates  ($4.8 million is budgeted).

But the real Great Park cash cow is Lennar Development Corp. In 2005, Lennar deposited $200 million in the Great Park fund.

This money will run out, and Orange County will be left with an annual bill of $82.7 million.

Is this something that Alameda's General Fund can support?

PG&E “Smart” Meters

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is quickly losing precious credibility with the East Bay community. Their widespread installations of the new “SmartMeters” brought complaints that the meters overstate electricity usage and lead to higher bills.


However, PG&E doesn’t seem to have a solid stance on the issue.

On the one hand, PG&E swears their new SmartMeters are 100% reliable, and they aim to test the meters side by side with the older analog meters. PG&E will randomly pick 150 Northern and Central California homes and test the new meters against the old meters for three months.

On the other hand, PG&E attempted to clear up the confusion/controversy at a state Senate hearing Monday, but their statement poked holes in their own story. San Jose Mercury News reports the quote from Helen Burt, a PG&E senior vice president:

"Last fall, when we said 'the meters work,' we meant it," she said. "They do. But that doesn't mean that every single one of them works 100 percent of the time."

So what percent of the time do they work? Seems like it’s not enough to keep customers happy. The same company that made the $2.2 billion investment in the SmartMeters is the one evaluating them. What is that called again? Conflict of interest?

Luckily, the California Public Utilities Commission also has announced that it will require an independent evaluation of whether the SmartMeters are allowing PG&E to gouge consumers. Hopefully the California Public Utilities Commission doesn’t have a conflict of interest as well.

Kudos To Alameda Sunshine Task Force

Watch out for the Alameda Sunshine Task Force - meeting again tonight at the Alameda Library.

Looks like the Task Force zeroed in on the Brown Act, which was originally enacted to cease informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials, particularly city councils and county boards. To avoid public backlash, local governing bodies would hide secret meetings behind closed doors.

See below for tonight's agenda, but first I'd like to address item 3D and add a next step for the task force:

Clarify how and when the City staff is paid. Also, require staff to disclose any E-mail correspondence and meeting notes with Alameda Point redevelopment partners and interested parties. This should be limited to City Council and Staff, any city advisory council, the Navy and SunCal, seeing as how SunCal is still under their Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA). Hopefully the staff isn't violating Brown Act and negotiating future terms, without public input, behind closed doors.

Sunshine Task Force Agenda Items - April 27, 2010
3-A. Speaker: Thomas Peele, Investigative Reporter, Bay Area News Group
3-B. Discussion of April 20, 2010 Presentation to the City Council
3-C. Determine Next Steps for Task Force

The Alameda Attorneys Go Marching In

According to the SunCal Alameda Point blog, there were eight city representatives for last week’s development meeting between SunCal and the City of Alameda. So, what is SunCal’s escrow account paying for? It seems to be paying for:


Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott, Public Works Director Matt Naclerio, Supervising Planner Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Donna Mooney, Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faiz, EPS Consultants Jim Musbach and Michael Nimon, Environmental Consultant Peter Russell, Consultant Land-use Attorney Cecily Barclay, Attorney William White and Attorney Ellen Garber

I’d like to see how much this 6-hour meeting cost the taxpayers of Alameda…

SunCal Opens Up Alameda Point Negotiations

I’ve never seen a land developer so fiercely determined to create transparency in City negotiations. After the Alameda City Council meeting last night it is easy to see why.


SunCal is paying the City of Alameda through an escrow account, and it seems they are not being told where it is going. There was particular concern over the City Managers salary. The City Manager claimed her salary is not paid for by SunCal, and seemed to want to end it at that. Only after many tense questions from the City Council members did she divulge that 80% of her billings are charged to the General Fund, and she does not bill directly to SunCal. So, whose time is this escrow account paying for?

Mayor Johnson aptly stated, “Well the most important thing is for SunCal to understand what they’re paying for.” Apparently they are paying for the City staff members that attend the meetings, as we’ve seen that the City Manager does not play a significant role in day-to-day negotiations. Is the City making a profit with this escrow account, while City senior management continues to bill to the General Fund?

The very same meeting began with a Sunshine Task Force List of Priorities. Can you add one more please?

I’d like to see the City Staff’s timesheets.

Ranked Choice Voting Helps, Hurts Some Bay Area Races

The instant runoff system, also known as ranked-choice voting (RCV), is used by Berkeley voters to elect the Mayor, members of the City Council, and the City Auditor. Oakland elects its Mayor, City Council members, City Attorney, and City Auditor using RCV. San Leandro uses RCV to elect its Mayor and City Council members.


The Bay City News recently covered a federal hearing challenging the system. Six citizens, led by former Sunset District supervisorial candidate Ron Dudum, sued the San Francisco in February. They claim the system is unconstitutional because some voters are denied the ability to have their vote counted in later rounds of ballot counting. A federal judge said at a court hearing today he is inclined to reject a citizens' challenge to San Francisco's instant runoff voting system, but made no final decision.

San Leandro Councilwoman Diana Souza, who had voted for RCV in January, switched her vote, explaining that she needed to further understand the matter. She explained that she was swayed by the audience, which overwhelmingly spoke in support of switching to the new system. But afterward, she felt that the audience had been stacked with "special interests."
Oakland mayoral candidate, Rebecca Kaplan can certainly benefit from this year’s new voting format. In her time on the Oakland City Council, she created alliances with numerous differing groups, which sets her up nicely for a lot of second-place votes in the election. In crowded races, a second-place vote goes a long way.

But according to Dudum, “I don’t think it’s a fair system.” Is it sour grapes or does he have a point?

Hide and Seek with the Alameda Interim City Manager

It looks like the Alameda ICM Anne Marie Gallant has finally found her way, albeit via phone, to a City/SunCal meeting for the redevelopment of Alameda Point.


The Alameda definition of “open government “seems to be various shades of gray. It is interesting that a private developer is the one pushing for more government transparency by opening up meeting notes via blog and documents via Web site to the public.

It looks like she made her first phone appearance only after these meeting notes became public information. For a project of this size and importance to the City, it is extremely unusual that the City Manager is not heavily involved. Instead, she delegates these meetings to Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott. What's more, she (and not the Deputy Manager) is newly responsible for reporting on these meetings in her City Manager Communications agenda item in Alameda City Council meetings. Another reason it is extremely unusual she just attended her first meeting.

With the public keeping close tabs on these meetings, maybe this will inspire Anne Marie to attend (in person) next week.

Alameda City Council and Staff Taking Cues from El Toro Redevelopment?

Marine Base redevelopment is a hot trend in the East Bay these days. The old marine base at El Toro in Irvine had a successful end - it is now the celebrated Great Park - but the redevelopment process led by the City of Irvine was a complete mess.


The Navy auctioned off the land to a conglomerate of developers, namely land developer Lennar. The City of Irvine then annexed the land into the city, and managed the development process. It was led by Councilman Larry Agran and his “board of directors” (4 City Councilmembers plus 4 community members at-large). From start to finish the City botched the job, from zoning changes negotiated behind closed doors to shady no-bid contracts to 14 companies.

Ten, count ‘em ten, developers were linked to the Irvine Business Complex. And of course, all these no-bid contractors and developers funneled money right into Larry Agran’s pockets, which resulted in 15 mailers touting the Irvine Councilmembers legislative success. Full story here: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-238941--.html?data=1

There are a lot of parallels between Alameda Point and El Toro, so let’s just hope Alameda officials don’t look to the marine base at El Toro as an exemplary model of the City functioning as the developer. My concern is that they are, and that their teacher doesn’t seem to know what they’re doing. The Irvine Board of Directors fell prey to corruption and misinformation, just like we’re seeing in the Alameda City Hall Chambers.

Marine Base at El Toro, Now Irvine’s Great (Controversial) Park

It seems Alameda Point isn’t alone in its redevelopment controversy. In Irvine, the former Marine Base redevelopment at El Toro has been just as rocky. Irvine has commissioned a board of directors for redevelopment, consisting of all five City Council members along with four public at-large members appointed by the board majority. For open government’s sake, a board of directors comprised of public members and municipal legislators sounds like a great idea.


Think again. The project is littered with accusations of pay to play, and corruption in every sense of the word. One Irvine ex-councilman even called it “legalized corruption.”

In true East Bay fashion, Irvine government officials engaged behind closed door policies and accepted money from Great Park contractors. This most likely led to a zoning change that allows for new Great Park “amenities”, i.e. restaurants and retail space.

However, I do have to end on this final note.

The Great Park will be one of the largest metropolitan parks created in the United States in the past 100 years. Estimated to cost $1.4 billion at completion, the park is also one of the largest public/private sustainable projects underway in the U. S. At 1,347 acres (5.45 km2), the Great Park will be larger than New York’s Central Park, San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park and San Diego’s Balboa Park.

Hmmmm… does the end justify the means?

Here is the end: http://www.ocgp.org/

San Leandro Hospital Needs Resuscitation

The Supervisor District 3 race is heating up, and it’s the San Leandro Hospital issue that’s making everyone’s blood boil. The hospital that serves 27K a year is in danger of closing, and the community is passionate about its recovery. Therefore, our fearless candidates are passionate about its recovery.


We’ve got three main contenders in the Supervisor race: Wilma Chan, Harold Lowe and Beverly Johnson. I’ve been following their campaign progress, and trying to uncover the candidate that will do what they say and bring real leadership to the table. And yes, the San Leandro Hospital issue is a pretty good thermometer for this. Wilma Chan is my pick, and I’ll tell you why:

• She’s in touch with her constituents – she actually meets with them

• She’s looking for solutions to move forward NOW, not stop the momentum and “think about it”

• She knows what she’s talking about – and backs it up with hard data in her speeches

However, some of her answers, in regards to San Leandro in particular are a bit wishy-washy. Specifically, the Hybrid option for the hospital – half rehab/half hospital. Hybrid doesn’t work. Has she been taking healthcare cues from Obama?

Will SunCal Do What They Say?

At the 3.16 City Council meeting, SunCal claimed they would adhere to City deadlines and submit a Measure A compliant development agreement today. Well, the clock is ticking and we are waiting.


What’s more, they alleged that they would deliver an Executive Summary that City Councilors could distribute to the media and the community that would explain, in layman terms, what the plan really entails. Tick, tock, tick, tock…

I am also waiting to see how SunCal will deliver on its promise of greater transparency with the community. In the infamous words of Frank Faye on 3.16, “we’re going to surprise you.” Well, any level of corporate transparency would surprise me. I hope they do so, and let’s all hope that the City of Alameda takes their “surprising” lead.

2:30AM Alameda Council Meeting Brings Out True Colors

Tuesday’s marathon of a City Council meeting ran past 2:30AM and into St. Patrick’s Day. However, I finally got some insight into Alameda City Council and Staff dynamics after sheer exhaustion wore down their usual fronts. Add the catalyst of SunCal into the meeting and the gloves really came off.


Interim City Manager Anne Marie Gallant and City Attorney Teresa Highsmith are clearly in cahoots, and attempted many times to deflect attempts for greater transparency in their departments. Lena Tam called for transparency among the Council, City Staff and SunCal, and asked if there was a way for the Council to be involved earlier. Gallant’s response was rude and curt, citing that the City procedure dictates the process – clearly trying to keep her door closed. Her partner in crime, Teresea Highsmith made a rude comment earlier on to Tam, trying to shut her up. Surprisingly, SunCal’s COO Frank Faye came in with a transparency suggestion of a Council subcommittee to attend staff meetings, therefore opening things up and allowing the Council to participate in the process. Other promises for transparency included an Executive Summary by SunCal immediately released to the public by the City.

SunCal reps got quite a hand slap, and even after their apologetic response it came as quite a surprise to me to hear Vice Mayor DeHaan say they were not humble enough in their presentation. Huh. It seems as if the Council, DeHaan specifically, is skipping out of meetings with SunCal and making excuses – Faye cites “I’m happy to see you are able to meet, you seem much healthier than we were led to believe.”

One win for open government: a Council subcommittee will hopefully be established to attend meetings with all interested Alameda Point development parties.

Now let’s see how well ICM Gallant delivers on her promise to summarize Alameda Point redevelopment meetings in her future “City Manager Communications.” I’m somehow doubting we'll get the unabridged version...

Have the Courage to Support Alameda Point

Zennie62, a SFGate blogger, hit the Alameda Point nail on the head. Everyone, especially our esteemed government officials, is so scared to stand up and support something, that they've began to oppose everything. I couldn't say it better than Zennie:

It is too easy to oppose something in the Bay Area. The hard job is to support something that makes things better. Looks like the Mayor of Alameda has joined the cause—let’s hope sensible people will study the plan and make that same logical choice. It is far better to support something that will clean up the toxic lands, create jobs, bring open space and sports fields to the City, create affordable housing and build better transit connections in the region than it is to hold out for something that can never be achieved.

Zennie62's blog link:  http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/


Alameda Point is no different than some of the other (dare I say it... successful) developments surrounding the area: Bayport, Hunters Point, Treasure Island. However, everyone is so terrified to support something, and so quick to oppose that the wheels have stopped turning.

My concern is the Alameda government's role in all this. When will they stop issuing bogus notice of defaults, or whatever the next lawsuit is, and focus on what will work for the City? And the City Manager, Anne Marie Gallant, seems to be leading the charge. It's so frustrating to step back and see a plan that will so clearly benefit the community, only to look over and see our representation running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off.

I urge Alameda officials (and citizens) to stand up, and have the courage to support something.

A Rough Courting Period

I will say this for SunCal, they really are a persistent suitor in a rough courting period. Even though they’ve been dealt blow after blow from a city that seems determined to keep 1/3 of the island in limbo, they come back with this statement picked up from today’s Orange County Business Journal:

“We will not abandon this plan and this city.”

They’ve invested quite a chunk of change in this development and it’s good to see they’re showing dedication. Make no mistake, they’re dedicated to a profitable end project, but what business isn’t? At least we know where they stand. I can’t say that much for the Mayor or the City Council.

Let’s call a spade a spade and a developer a developer. They’re in this to develop the land and make a profit in the process. Why is this a surprise to people? The City knows this full well, so they should get to the table and make their demands. If I was at that table, here’s what I’d be ranting and raving for:

• A school.
• What was their line again? Make the developer pay? Well, make ‘em pay for a school.
• No amenities cap.
• 200 million in amenities is quite a promise, but apparently not enough to cover the deliverables in the plan. So, remove the cap.
• Affordable housing.
• These words strike fear in heart of all East Bay residents, but the sad truth is we need it. Only single family units aren’t workable on Alameda Point. Let’s not be so scared of a few condos and apartment buildings.
• TRANSPARENCY.
• Yes, I used caps lock on purpose. Let’s make SunCal release all documents to the public. And the City. And the Navy.

What do you think?

Alameda for Free Ice Cream on Alameda Point

As a pro-business advocate, I can’t help but roll my eyes at some of Alameda’s recent suggestions for the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Citing San Francisco’s Presidio as the prototype for a future Alameda Point, one resident says he’d much rather have several hundred acres of bayside park. Yea, it’d be nice to have free ice cream on Alameda Point too. But that’s not going to happen. (Either way, didn’t the SunCal plan call for 150 acres of parks/open space?)


Here’s how I see it:

There’s an old naval base on Alameda Point. It’s a financial drain on the city. A plan has been developed that the community apparently agrees with (according to the San Francisco Chronicle). It cleans up the bay and brings some jobs. So the City brought in a developer that can carry out the plan.

This is obviously over simplified, but I’m trying to say that, at this point, some Alameda residents seem to be raising issues just to raise issues. The City is in a great place to negotiate, which they should take advantage of, but they should also know a good deal when they see one, which this plan is. (Cue angry Action Alameda comments here)

For me, the demands of residents raise two main concerns:

1. A Measure A compliant plan is not feasible. Four developers have tried, four developers have failed. The proof is in the pudding.

2. Have the City develop Alameda Point. As of now, the City seems to believe they can handle the redevelopment of Alameda Point on their own. However, in July 2007 they hired a master developer citing that the City lacked the skills and equity to develop a project of this size. Why is the City suddenly capable of doing so themselves?

I’m sure Alameda will go back on forth on the issue at least 20 more times. Join me in holding our City officials accountable to make prudent business decisions for our City, led by the City’s best interest, and not politics.

We Need More than Toxic Waste Cleanup on Alameda Point

As predicted, Measure B did not pass on February 2 and as always, the City’s post election reaction was irrational and implausible.


With all due respect to my fellow East Bay citizens, land issues are not typically placed on the ballot because they’re far too complex for the average joe voter. For these issues, we should rely on our city officials to assess and determine the best option for our community. Isn’t that, after all, what government is intended for? However, with upcoming elections to plan for and let’s call it plain cowardice, the Mayor, the City Council and the City Manager have all shrunk away from their responsibilities, putting the issues on the ballot “so the voters have a choice.”

The Council and, in particular, the City Manager have botched this chance at an amazing plan for Alameda, all because they were too afraid to stand up and take a little criticism. At the end of the day, the Council can move this plan forward if they decide to, whether or not Alameda voters vote Yes or No. Adding a little affordable housing trumps the Measure A density measure (the real reason why Measure B had to go on the ballot) and allows development to continue.

One thing to say about SunCal. They did not follow due process. It should have begun with an Environmental Impact Report, approved terms from the Navy and a Draft Development Agreement. This did cause warranted concern from the city, and should have been enforced by city officials from the get go. The onus was instead passed on to uninformed voters susceptible to rumors and heresy.

The fact of the matter is the community supports the development plan, so did the Mayor and the majority of the Council when it was introduced. Heck, even environmental groups support the plan:

http://www.greenbelt.org/resources/press/releases/release_2010jan20.html

Alameda can hardly develop a golf course, let alone a project such as Alameda Point. We need the equity of SunCal to get this under way.

The City Manger’s solution? Long-term leases. This is the current situation on Alameda Point, and they don’t even cover the cost of maintenance. In addition, her bogus press release and public service announcement against SunCal leads me to believe that she is trying to pass the heat from her poor management onto the developer. Don’t be fooled, Alameda.

This clumsy attempt to handle this development process has ended in unnecessary controversy and millions of taxpayer dollars wasted. We need to get out of our own way, and get some real leadership in city hall.

Revised Plan for Alameda Point?

The Alameda Journal outlines the “revisions” to the SunCal plan for Alameda Point in an article below.


http://www.contracostatimes.com/alamedajournal/ci_14240083?nclick_check=1

Although all the revisions seem fair, I wonder how they came to them…

It just seems hilarious to me that the citizens of Alameda would not vote for more business and more community services and benefits to replace a decrepit naval base. Another symptom of paranoid citizens afraid of change. The government taking this initiative into their own hands seems to say something… Maybe the public isn’t as competent as we think (I’m speaking to the precious few of you that do think the general public is competent).

We’re pro-business, and this one is a no-brainer. Move forward with the plan, and stop protesting just to protest. It’s no surprise that CAVE (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) is acting up in Alameda again.

Play Through, Alameda

Something smelled fishy at the January 7th City Council meeting to me. Interim City Manager (ICM) Anne Marie Gallant jumped off track and ranted about the City General Fund, when the discussion was supposed to be centered on the Mif Albright golf course. Hmmmm... why is that?

See Laurendo's blog post for the City Council video clip: http://laurendo.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/golf-analogy/

Clearly the City of Alameda has some heart for the golf course. I'm surprised the golfers haven't started their own blog. It is Alameda, after all... Fortunately the Council saw reason, and voted to keep the discussion open until RFP responses are reviewed, allowing the City to scrutinize the manner in which a private operator would run the Chuck Corica complex. Yet the ICM seems determined to cut off any exploratory work that could benefit the City and its residents at the end of the day.

Something doesn't add up. I just wonder who is whispering in her ear.